Talk:Alekseyev I-212/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 17:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

All looks good - passed at GA, nicely done, Hchc2009 (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

A few tweaks needed:

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
 * "After working as Lavochkin's right-hand man during World War II, Alekseyev was appointed as Chief Designer of OKB-21 at Gor'kiy in 1946." I'd expand Alekseyev's name (as per the info box), and start the sentence with him. e.g. "Semyon Alekseyev was appointed... ...after working as Semyon Lavochkin's right-hand man..." - that way you'll start with the active part of the sentence.
 * "OKB" is never expanded or explained.
 * "(among others)" - you don't need the brackets here.
 * Worth linking cruciform tail.
 * "The aircraft was intended to use Klimov VK-1 engines, a derivative of the Rolls-Royce Nene, but these were still under development, so Nenes were substituted instead." - the "these" can get confused with the Nene's; I'd go for "but the Klimov engines were still under development", to avoid any confusion
 * "The information on the design's armament is contradictory. " - I'd break for a new paragraph before "The information...", allowing the reader to follow the difference in views more clearly.
 * You have the text going " Bill Gunston says..." and "Yefim Gordon claims..." - is this deliberate? (It suggests that Gunston is more accurate than Gordon). If they're both equally valid, I'd go for "Yefim Gordon argues...", which would be more neutral.
 * "They also differ on the fate of the aircraft. " - Worth spelling it out: "Gunston and Gordon also differ..."
 * Good suggestions all.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
 * One citation ends the publisher in a full-stop, the other with a comma - either's fine, but you'll need to be consistent. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed.


 * Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research.


 * Clear. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * The one bit that seemed lacking was the ending - why wasn't the variant proceeded with? (it was clearly cancelled before or after the prototype was developed, but its not clear why from the article). Hchc2009 (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not clear in the sources.


 * Fine. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.


 * Neutral. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.


 * Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;


 * yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)